ArticleJAMA network open2022
County-Level Social Vulnerability and Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the US, 2018.
Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Utility of the Social Vulnerability Index in Addressing Breast Cancer Disparities: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- Medical Debt and Advanced Cancer Stage at Diagnosis.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Historical Redlining and Spatiotemporal Patterns in Breast Cancer Screening.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Examining the Role of the Social Vulnerability Index in the Association between Race/Ethnicity and Breast Cancer Outcomes.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026Article
- Socioeconomic Disparities in the Progression of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Barrett's Esophagus to Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.Annals of surgery · 2026Article
- Epidemiology of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism Across the United States.American journal of hematology · 2026Article
- The Lingering Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Colorectal Cancer Screening Modalities and Staging by Neighborhood-Level Deprivation.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Characterizing Treatment Delays in Patients With HPV-Negative Oropharyngeal Cancer.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Engagement and Retention in Precision Public Health: A Cascade Analysis of Two Cluster Randomized Trials.Public health genomics · 2026Article
- Sociodemographic Factors Matter in Screening Mammography.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2026Article
- County-level social, preventive care, and behavioral correlates of colorectal cancer mortality in the United States: a nationwide ecological analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Black US women share their experiences with follow-up after abnormal cervical cancer screening.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Unpacking rural Heterogeneity: A proof-of-concept study of how varying rural contexts shape breast cancer screening behaviors.SSM - population health · 2025Article
- Under-recognized risk factors and low perceived breast cancer risk among rural women in South-central China: A multisite cross-sectional study.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2025Article
- Rural women choose self-sampling over a pelvic exam for cervical cancer screening: a mixed-method study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Development of a Composite Measure to Identify Priority Areas of Need for Cancer Screening Interventions.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
- Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going? The State of the Hematology and Medical Oncologist Workforce in America.JCO oncology practice · 2025Article
- Child caregiving and cancer screening: a nationally representative analysis.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Sociodemographic Predictors of County-Level Mammography Screening Rates in the United States.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Area-level factors have been identified as important social determinants of health (SDoH) that impact many health-related outcomes. Less is known about how the social vulnerability index (SVI), as a scalable composite score, can multidimensionally explain the population-based cancer screening program uptake at a county level. Objective: To examine the geographic variation of US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)-recommended breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening rates and the association between county-level SVI and the 3 screening rates. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cross-sectional study used county-level information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's PLACES and SVI data sets from 2018 for 3141 US counties. Analyses were conducted from October 2021 to February 2022. Exposures: Social vulnerability index score categorized in quintiles. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was county-level rates of USPSTF guideline-concordant, up-to-date breast, cervical, and colorectal screenings. Odds ratios were calculated for each cancer screening by SVI quintile as unadjusted (only accounting for eligible population per county) or adjusted for urban-rural status, percentage of uninsured adults, and primary care physician rate per 100 000 residents. Results: Across 3141 counties, county-level cancer screening rates showed regional disparities ranging from 54.0% to 81.8% for breast cancer screening, from 69.9% to 89.7% for cervical cancer screening, and from 39.8% to 74.4% for colorectal cancer screening. The multivariable regression model showed that a higher SVI was significantly associated with lower odds of cancer screening, with the lowest odds in the highest SVI quintile. When comparing the highest quintile of SVI (SVI-Q5) with the lowest quintile of SVI (SVI-Q1), the unadjusted odds ratio was 0.86 (95% posterior credible interval [CrI], 0.84-0.87) for breast cancer screening, 0.80 (95% CrI, 0.79-0.81) for cervical cancer screening, and 0.72 (95% CrI, 0.71-0.73) for colorectal cancer screening. When fully adjusted, the odds ratio was 0.92 (95% CrI, 0.90-0.93) for breast cancer screening, 0.87 (95% CrI, 0.86-0.88) for cervical cancer screening, and 0.86 (95% CrI, 0.85-0.88) for colorectal cancer screening, showing slightly attenuated associations. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, regional disparities were found in cancer screening rates at a county level. Quantifying how SVI associates with each cancer screening rate could provide insight into the design and focus of future interventions targeting cancer prevention disparities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.